DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pi (US 2023/0311844) in view of Lado (US 2014/0046523)
As to claim 8 Kim discloses a method for controlling a motor vehicle hybrid powertrain comprising a combustion engine and at least one electric machine associated with a battery, the method comprising:
using an energy management law to determine an optimal raw torque setpoint for the combustion engine as a function of the overall consumption of the powertrain, the consumption of the combustion engine and of at least one electric machine (Paragraph 26 “calculating costs for the plurality of candidate engine operation points and corresponding motor operation points; determining engine and motor operation points at which the engine and the motor can operate at the lowest cost; and applying an output command to the engine and the motor based on the determined engine and motor operation points.”);
determining an equivalence factor and the gradient of the equivalence factor as a function of the current energy present in the battery and of the target battery energy (Paragraph 26 “…determining a class of SOC based on the current operation state; determining, from a map in which a whole operable range of the engine is arranged, a plurality of candidate engine operation points and a plurality of motor operation points corresponding to the respective candidate engine operation points according to the determined class of SOC;”);
Pi does not explicitly disclose determining the crankshaft torque as a function of the target torque required at the wheel and of the step-down gearing, which are obtained from the energy management law, and determining the crankshaft torque gradient;
Lado teaches determining the crankshaft torque as a function of the target torque required at the wheel and of the step-down gearing, which are obtained from the energy management law, and determining the crankshaft torque gradient (Paragraph 4 “A method for determining a preferred engine speed and a preferred engine torque of a selected operating range state of an electro-mechanical multi-mode transmission configured to transfer torque among an engine, at least one electric machine and a drive includes selecting between of a first search window and a second search window”)
determining a combustion engine torque gradient minimum value and a combustion engine torque gradient maximum value using parameterizable tables each dependent on the gradient of the equivalence factor and on the filtered crankshaft target torque gradient (Paragraph 4 “. Each of the first and second search windows includes a two-dimensional search window definable by a first axis having minimum and maximum engine speed values and a second axis having minimum and maximum engine torque values. A plurality of candidate operating points within the selected one of the first and second search windows is iteratively generated. One of the plurality of candidate operating points within the selected one of the first and second search windows is iteratively determined as an optimum operating point.”); and
determining the optimal combustion engine torque as a function of the combustion engine raw torque setpoint by limiting the dynamics of change thereof as a function of the combustion engine torque gradient minimum value and the combustion engine torque gradient maximum value (Paragraph 34 “The first search window 500 includes a plurality of candidate operating points 512, each candidate operating point including a candidate engine speed and a candidate engine torque. It will be appreciated that the plurality of candidate operating points 512 can correspond to the plurality of candidate engine speeds Ne(j) 312 and the plurality of candidate engine torques Te(j) 314 iteratively generated by the two-dimensional search engine 420 of FIG. 4. Distance 515 denotes a distance between each candidate operating point 512 with respect to engine speed. The shaded one of the plurality of candidate operating points 512 denotes a preferred operating point. The preferred operating point can correspond to the candidate engine speed and the candidate engine torque having a minimum cost.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Pi to include the teachings of determining an optimal engine torque of the purpose of improving efficiency.
As to claim 9 Lado teaches a control method further comprising first-order filtering of the crankshaft torque gradient as a function of a memory-stored time constant (Paragraph 46).
As to claim 11 Lado teaches a control method wherein the default combustion engine torque gradient minimum value has a value that is lower than the combustion engine torque gradient minimum value, and the default combustion engine torque gradient maximum value has a value that is higher than the combustion engine torque gradient maximum value(Paragraph 46).
As to claim 12 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 8.
As to claim 13 the claim is interpreted and rejected as in claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN K MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-1471. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
IMRAN K. MUSTAFA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/IMRAN K MUSTAFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668 2/18/2026